MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Execution of Promissory Note Not In Dispute, Defendant's Narrative Improbable: AP High Court Affirms Liability in Rs.13 Lakh Borrowing Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the bench presided by the Honourable Sri Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu dismissed the appeal challenging the validity of a promissory note involving a sum of Rs.13,00,000, thereby affirming the trial court's decision.

The case centered on the execution and subsequent dispute of a promissory note wherein the respondent, Potla Venkateshwarulu, was accused by the appellant, Gude Hari Babu, of failing to repay the full borrowed amount with interest as stipulated. The appeal contested the trial court's decree that had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the debt owed by the defendant based on the promissory note.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed Rs.13,00,000 for business purposes and partially repaid Rs.25,000, leaving a substantial balance unpaid. The defendant, however, contended that the amount was for a joint real estate venture and accused the plaintiff of fraud. The issues revolved around the authenticity of the promissory note and the purpose of the borrowed sum.

Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu pointed out that "Absolutely, execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant is not in dispute." The court found the defendant’s signature on the promissory note and his acknowledgment of partial payment as conclusive evidence supporting the note's execution.

The court noted several improbabilities in the defendant's narrative, particularly his claims of the amount being for a real estate venture. There was no substantial evidence to corroborate his assertions, undermining his defense.

The testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, was consistent and corroborated the details of the promissory note. The court highlighted the inability of the defendant’s witness to discredit the plaintiff’s evidence effectively.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, citing no grounds to challenge the trial court’s findings. However, considering the partial payments already made, the court permitted the defendant to clear the remaining debt in three installments by July 31, 2024. Failure to comply with this directive would allow the plaintiff to execute the decree for the outstanding amount.

 Date of Decision: April 19, 2024.

Gude Hari Babu v. Potla Venkateshwarulu

Latest Legal News